EP4368940A1 - Method and device for determining an engagement plan for an air defense system - Google Patents

Abstract

- Method and device for determining an engagement plan for an air defense system. - The device determines, using a processing unit, an engagement plan for an air defense system (2) comprising munitions (Mj) fired from launchers (4), the processing unit determining the engagement plan by implementing an auction algorithm taking into account, on the one hand, the number of munitions (Mj) from the launcher ( 4) representing a first constraint concerning the ammunition (Mj) of the launcher (4), and on the other hand a number of firing dates in availability windows representing a second constraint concerning the firing dates, the engagement plan comprising for each target (Ci) the allocation on the one hand of a particular ammunition (Mj) from a particular launcher (4) and on the other hand of a firing date of this ammunition (Mj), this allocation satisfying said first and second constraints.

Description

Technical area

The present invention relates to a method and a device for determining an engagement plan for an air defense system, as well as a method and a system for processing aerial threats in the military domain comprising, respectively, such a method and such a device.

State of the art

The present invention applies to the military field, and more precisely to an allocation of munitions, namely mainly missiles, to aerial targets (or threats) (“Weapon Target Assignment” in English). In a military context, the defense of an area in the face of an enemy air offensive, sometimes with a high number of air threats representing a saturating attack, requires rapid and optimized processing in order to best allocate the available missiles to deal with the threats. by maximizing the survival expectancy of defended strategic points.

Depending on the threats, an engagement plan is generally determined taking into account operational and technical criteria.

Determining the engagement plan is based not only on the allocation of available missiles to the targets, but also on the choice of the firing date of these missiles. Such a determination can be very complicated due to the many constraints and uncertainties that exist in a complex situation of this type.

There are, in particular, constraints linked to the fact that a launcher can be equipped with several missiles and that a certain preparation time is necessary between the successive firings of two missiles and that the firings can only be carried out during windows of special availability.

Modeling such a scenario therefore poses a real problem that arms manufacturers encounter in developing solutions to meet this difficulty. The engagement plan must be feasible and optimal in terms of probability of success.

There is therefore a need to find a solution making it possible to determine a commitment plan satisfying the aforementioned requirements.

Presentation of the invention

The present invention relates to a method for determining an engagement plan for an air defense system, which makes it possible to meet the aforementioned need.

• une étape de réception de données consistant à recevoir des données concernant au moins les munitions disponibles et des cibles détectées ; et
• une étape de traitement consistant, à l'aide des données reçues à l'étape de réception, à former le plan d'engagement, ledit plan d'engagement étant utilisé par le système de défense aérienne pour défendre une zone particulière contre les menaces aériennes,

est remarquable en ce que :

• l'étape de réception de données consiste à recevoir également, pour chaque lanceur de munitions du système de défense aérienne, d'une part le nombre de munitions du lanceur représentant une première contrainte concernant les munitions dudit lanceur, et d'autre part un nombre de dates de tir dans des fenêtres de disponibilité représentant une seconde contrainte concernant les dates de tir ; et
• l'étape de traitement consiste à déterminer le plan d'engagement en prenant en compte lesdites premières et secondes contraintes, ladite étape de traitement comprenant au moins :
  • une première sous-étape consistant à déterminer, pour chaque couple de cible et de munition, un bénéfice dit classique qui représente un paramètre permettant de quantifier l'intérêt d'utiliser la munition pour neutraliser la cible, ledit bénéfice classique dépendant d'une probabilité que la munition détruise la cible ;
  • une deuxième sous-étape consistant à déterminer, pour chaque couple de cible et de munition, un bénéfice dit adapté, en prenant en compte des conflits potentiels entre allocataires ; et
  • une troisième sous-étape consistant à mettre en oeuvre un algorithme d'enchère prenant en compte lesdites premières et secondes contraintes et utilisant lesdits bénéfices adaptés pour tous les couples de munition et de cible, afin de déterminer le plan d'engagement, ledit plan d'engagement comprenant pour chacune desdites cibles l'allocation d'une part d'au moins une munition particulière d'un lanceur particulier et d'autre part d'une date de tir de cette munition, cette allocation satisfaisant lesdites premières et secondes contraintes.

For this purpose, according to the invention, said method of determining an engagement plan for an air defense system comprising at least munitions (in particular missiles) capable of being fired from launchers, at least some of said launchers being capable of firing several munitions, the engagement plan consisting of allocating munitions from the air defense system to so-called target aerial threats, said method comprising the following steps, implemented automatically and successively:

• a data receiving step of receiving data relating to at least the available munitions and detected targets; And
• a processing step consisting, using the data received in the reception step, of forming the engagement plan, said engagement plan being used by the air defense system to defend a particular area against aerial threats ,

is remarkable in that:

• the data reception step consists of also receiving, for each ammunition launcher of the air defense system, on the one hand the number of munitions of the launcher representing a first constraint concerning the munitions of said launcher, and on the other hand a number firing dates in availability windows representing a second constraint regarding firing dates; And
• the processing step consists of determining the engagement plan by taking into account said first and second constraints, said processing step comprising at least:
  • a first sub-step consisting of determining, for each pair of target and ammunition, a so-called classic benefit which represents a parameter making it possible to quantify the advantage of using the ammunition to neutralize the target, said classic benefit depending on a probability that the ammunition destroys the target;
  • a second sub-step consisting of determining, for each pair of target and ammunition, a so-called adapted benefit, taking into account potential conflicts between beneficiaries; And
  • a third sub-step consisting of implementing an auction algorithm taking into account said first and second constraints and using said profits adapted for all pairs of ammunition and target, in order to determine the engagement plan, said plan of commitment comprising for each of said targets the allocation on the one hand of at least one particular ammunition from a particular launcher and on the other hand of a firing date of this ammunition, this allocation satisfying said first and second constraints.

Thus, thanks to the invention, an auction algorithm is used to determine the engagement plan. Such an auction algorithm has many advantages. In particular, it is very robust, its complexity makes it possible to understand saturating attacks in real time, and it converges towards a global maximum whereas the usual “greedy” type solutions only reach a local maximum, with no guarantee that this is close to the global maximum.

• d'une part, en satisfaisant lesdites premières et secondes contraintes par la mise en oeuvre de l'algorithme d'enchère ; et
• d'autre part, en gérant lesdits conflits d'allocations (ou conflits légers) potentiels par le calcul et la prise en compte du bénéfice adapté au lieu d'un bénéfice classique (c'est-à-dire d'un bénéfice usuel d'un algorithme d'enchère).

Furthermore, above all, thanks to the invention, the auction algorithm is made applicable to the determination of the commitment plan, in particular by determining the adapted profit. In the application considered, there are, in fact, two elements to be allocated (ammunition and firing date) that cannot be separated, and conflicts may appear between allocations, which could invalidate the commitment plan. The aforementioned method implementing the auction algorithm makes it possible to respond to such a situation:

• on the one hand, by satisfying said first and second constraints by implementing the auction algorithm; And
• on the other hand, by managing said potential allocation conflicts (or light conflicts) by calculating and taking into account the adapted benefit instead of a classic benefit (that is to say a usual benefit of 'an auction algorithm).

dans laquelle :

• p_ij est la probabilité qu'une munition d'indice j détruise une cible d'indice i, la probabilité dépendant de la munition et la date de tir de cette dernière ; et
• u _i est un critère de menace attribué à la cible d'indice i.

Advantageously, the first sub-step determines the classic benefit β _ij using the following expression: $${\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}=u_i{p}_{\mathit{ij}}$$

in which :

• p _ij is the probability that an ammunition of index j destroys a target of index i, the probability depending on the ammunition and the date of firing of the latter; And
• u _i is a threat criterion assigned to the target with index i .

The classic benefit β _ij is therefore a parameter which makes it possible to quantify the interest in using a munition Mj to neutralize a target Ci. It weights the assignments in the objective function to be maximized (specified below).

The threat criterion u _i quantifies the level of dangerousness based on the classification of the target. It is all the more important if the target represents an immediate danger or more generally a priority. It is set upstream of the auction algorithm according to the tactical situation and remains fixed throughout the calculation.

dans laquelle :

• β_ij est ledit bénéfice classique ;
• c_ijkl est un coefficient supérieur ou égal à zéro, qui illustre l'importance d'un conflit entre deux allocations [ij] (munition Mj allouée à la cible Ci) et [kl] (munition MI allouée à la cible Ck) ; et
• x_kl est une valeur binaire qui vaut 1 si la munition d'indice / est allouée à la cible d'indice k et qui vaut 0 sinon.

Furthermore, advantageously, the second sub-step determines the adapted benefit β ' _ij using the following expression: $${\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}^{\prime }={\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}-\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathit{kl}}{\mathrm{vs}}_{\mathit{ijkl}}{x}_{\mathit{kl}}}$$

in which :

• β _ij is said classic profit;
• c _ijkl is a coefficient greater than or equal to zero, which illustrates the importance of a conflict between two allocations [ij] (munition Mj allocated to target Ci) and [kl] (munition MI allocated to target Ck); And
• x _kl is a binary value which is worth 1 if the ammunition with index / is allocated to the target with index k and which is worth 0 otherwise.

• chaque munition d'indice j étant caractérisé par un prix p_j , chaque cible mise sur la munition qui maximise son profit $\underset{j}{\mathit{argmax}}\left\{\beta {\prime }_{\mathit{ij}}-p_j\right\}$
  
  , avec β' _ij ledit bénéfice adapté ;
• la mise fait monter le prix de la munition jusqu'à la résolution de tous les conflits ;
• cette manière de procéder permet d'atteindre le maximum global de la somme : $$\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathit{ij}}{\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}{x}_{\mathit{ij}},{\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}\ge 0,}& x_{\mathit{ij}}\ge 0\end{array}$$
  
  avec les limitations suivantes sur chaque cible et chaque munition : $$\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \sum _j{x}_{\mathit{ij}}=M_i},& {\displaystyle \sum _i{x}_{\mathit{ij}}\le N_j}\end{array}$$
  
  selon lesquelles l'algorithme d'enchère alloue exactement M_i munitions à la cible d'indice i et n'alloue pas plus de N_j fois le type de la munition d'indice j dans un lanceur donné ; et
• la convergence est obtenue lorsque chaque cible a alloué le nombre voulu de munitions.

Furthermore, advantageously, the third sub-step implements the auction algorithm having the following characteristics:

• each ammunition of index j being characterized by a price p _j , each target bets on the ammunition which maximizes its profit $\underset{j}{\mathit{argmax}}\left\{\beta {\prime }_{\mathit{ij}}-p_j\right\}$
  
  , with β ' _ij said adapted benefit;
• the stake increases the price of the ammunition until all conflicts are resolved;
• this way of proceeding makes it possible to reach the overall maximum of the sum: $$\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathit{ij}}{\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}{x}_{\mathit{ij}},{\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}\ge 0,}& x_{\mathit{ij}}\ge 0\end{array}$$
  
  with the following limitations on each target and each ammunition: $$\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \sum _j{x}_{\mathit{ij}}=M_i},& {\displaystyle \sum _i{x}_{\mathit{ij}}\le {\mathrm{NOT}}_j}\end{array}$$
  
  according to which the auction algorithm allocates exactly M _i ammunition to the target of index i and does not allocate more than N _j times the type of ammunition of index j in a given launcher; And
• convergence is obtained when each target has allocated the desired number of munitions.

Said first and second constraints are taken into account in inequalities similar to the formulation: $${\displaystyle \sum _i{x}_{\mathit{ij}}\le {\mathrm{NOT}}_j}$$

Thus, for example in the case of a stock of ammunition, the number N _j corresponds to the maximum number of ammunition of the launcher in which the ammunition j is located. In the case of the number of firing dates, the number N _j is the maximum number of shots that the launcher can perform in the firing slot where the firing date of the ammunition j is located in its launcher.

• si la munition est pourvue d'un autodirecteur pour le guidage terminal, une fréquence pour ledit autodirecteur ; et
• un canal montant.

In a particular embodiment, the processing step consists of also determining, for the engagement plan, at least one of the following parameters for each of the munitions:

• if the munition is provided with a seeker for terminal guidance, a frequency for said seeker; And
• a rising channel.

The present invention also relates to a method for dealing with aerial threats in the military field, using an air defense system comprising at least munitions capable of being fired from launchers.

• une étape de détection consistant à détecter des objets aériens (ou objets volants) dans une zone donnée ;
• une étape d'identification et de classification consistant à identifier, parmi les objets aériens détectés, ceux qui représentent des menaces aériennes dites cibles et à déterminer une classification pour chacune des cibles identifiées ;
• une étape de prédiction consistant à prédire une trajectoire future pour chacune des cibles identifiées, au moins à partir de la classification correspondante ;
• une étape de calcul consistant à calculer une fenêtre d'interception, pour chaque couple de munition et de cible, en fonction de la trajectoire future prédite de la cible et d'un domaine d'interception de la munition, chacune desdites fenêtres d'interception étant transformée en une fenêtre de disponibilité ;
• une étape de traitement consistant à déterminer un plan d'engagement en tenant compte desdites fenêtres de disponibilité, l'étape de traitement mettant en oeuvre un procédé d'optimisation d'un plan d'engagement tel que celui précité ; et
• une étape d'exécution du plan d'engagement.

According to the invention, said method comprises at least the following steps:

• a detection step consisting of detecting aerial objects (or flying objects) in a given area;
• an identification and classification step consisting of identifying, among the detected aerial objects, those which represent so-called target aerial threats and determining a classification for each of the identified targets;
• a prediction step consisting of predicting a future trajectory for each of the identified targets, at least from the corresponding classification;
• a calculation step consisting of calculating an interception window, for each pair of ammunition and target, as a function of the predicted future trajectory of the target and an interception domain of the ammunition, each of said interception windows being transformed into an availability window;
• a processing step consisting of determining a commitment plan taking into account said availability windows, the processing step implementing a method of optimizing a commitment plan such as that mentioned above; And
• a stage of execution of the commitment plan.

In a particular embodiment, each target corresponding to a particular type of target among types likely to be different, the processing step takes into account, for each type of target, a rule of engagement and/or a policy shooting.

The present invention further relates to a device for determining an engagement plan for an air defense system comprising at least munitions capable of being fired from launchers, at least some of said launchers being capable of firing several munitions , the engagement plan consisting of allocating munitions from the air defense system to so-called target air threats.

• une unité de réception de données configurée pour recevoir des données concernant au moins les munitions disponibles et des cibles détectées ; et
• une unité de traitement configurée pour, à l'aide des données reçues de l'unité de réception de données, former le plan d'engagement, ledit plan d'engagement étant utilisé par le système de défense aérienne pour défendre une zone particulière contre les menaces aériennes,

est remarquable en ce que :

• l'unité de réception de données est configurée pour recevoir également, pour chaque lanceur de munitions du système de défense aérienne, d'une part le nombre de munitions du lanceur représentant une première contrainte concernant les munitions dudit lanceur, et d'autre part un nombre de dates de tir dans des fenêtres de disponibilité représentant une seconde contrainte concernant les dates de tir ; et
• l'unité de traitement est configurée pour déterminer le plan d'engagement en prenant en compte lesdites premières et secondes contraintes, l'unité de traitement comportant au moins :
  • un premier élément configuré pour déterminer, pour chaque couple de cible et de munition, un bénéfice dit classique qui représente un paramètre permettant de quantifier l'intérêt d'utiliser la munition pour neutraliser la cible, ledit bénéfice classique dépendant d'une probabilité que la munition détruise la cible ;
  • un deuxième élément configuré pour déterminer, pour chaque couple de cible d'indice et de munition, un bénéfice dit adapté, en prenant en compte des conflits (dits légers) potentiels entre allocations ; et
  • un troisième élément configuré pour mettre en oeuvre un algorithme d'enchère prenant en compte lesdites premières et secondes contraintes et utilisant lesdits bénéfices adaptés pour tous les couples de munition et de cible, afin de déterminer le plan d'engagement, ledit plan d'engagement comprenant pour chaque cible l'allocation d'une part d'au moins une munition particulière d'un lanceur particulier et d'autre part d'une date de tir de cette munition, cette allocation satisfaisant lesdites premières et secondes contraintes.

According to the invention, said device for determining an engagement plan, which comprises at least the following units:

• a data reception unit configured to receive data regarding at least available munitions and detected targets; And
• a processing unit configured to, using the data received from the data reception unit, form the engagement plan, said engagement plan being used by the air defense system to defend a particular area against aerial threats,

is remarkable in that:

• the data reception unit is configured to also receive, for each ammunition launcher of the air defense system, on the one hand the number of munitions of the launcher representing a first constraint concerning the munitions of said launcher, and on the other hand a number of firing dates in availability windows representing a second constraint regarding firing dates; And
• the processing unit is configured to determine the engagement plan by taking into account said first and second constraints, the processing unit comprising at least:
  • a first element configured to determine, for each pair of target and ammunition, a so-called classic benefit which represents a parameter making it possible to quantify the interest in using the ammunition to neutralize the target, said classic benefit depending on a probability that the ammunition destroys the target;
  • a second element configured to determine, for each pair of index target and ammunition, a so-called adapted benefit, taking into account potential (so-called light) conflicts between allocations; And
  • a third element configured to implement an auction algorithm taking into account said first and second constraints and using said profits adapted for all pairs of ammunition and target, in order to determine the engagement plan, said engagement plan comprising for each target the allocation on the one hand of at least one particular ammunition from a particular launcher and on the other hand of a firing date of this ammunition, this allocation satisfying said first and second constraints.

Furthermore, the present invention also relates to a system for processing aerial threats in the military domain, using an air defense system as mentioned above.

• une unité de détection configurée pour détecter des objets aériens dans une zone donnée ;
• une unité d'identification et de classification configurée pour identifier, parmi les objets aériens détectés, ceux qui représentent des menaces aériennes dites cibles, et pour déterminer une classification pour chacune des cibles identifiées ;
• une unité de prédiction configurée pour prédire une trajectoire future pour chacune des cibles identifiées, au moins à partir de la classification correspondante ;
• une unité de calcul configurée pour calculer une fenêtre d'interception, pour chaque couple de munition et de cible, en fonction de la trajectoire future prédite de la cible et d'un domaine d'interception de la munition, chacune desdites fenêtres d'interception étant transformée en une fenêtre de disponibilité ; et
• une unité de traitement configurée pour déterminer un plan d'engagement en tenant compte desdites fenêtres de disponibilité, l'unité de traitement comprenant un dispositif de détermination d'un plan d'engagement tel que celui décrit ci-dessus, ledit plan d'engagement étant susceptible d'être exécuté par ledit système de défense aérienne.

According to the invention, said air threat processing system comprises at least the following units:

• a detection unit configured to detect aerial objects in a given area;
• an identification and classification unit configured to identify, among the detected aerial objects, those which represent so-called target aerial threats, and to determine a classification for each of the identified targets;
• a prediction unit configured to predict a future trajectory for each of the identified targets, at least from the corresponding classification;
• a calculation unit configured to calculate an interception window, for each pair of ammunition and target, as a function of the predicted future trajectory of the target and an interception domain of the ammunition, each of said interception windows being transformed into an availability window; And
• a processing unit configured to determine a commitment plan taking into account said availability windows, the processing unit comprising a device for determining a commitment plan such as that described above, said commitment plan being capable of being executed by said air defense system.

Brief description of the figures

• La figure 1 est le schéma synoptique d'un système de traitement de menaces conforme à un mode de réalisation particulier de l'invention, comprenant un dispositif de détermination d'un plan d'engagement.
• La figure 2 est une vue schématique d'un exemple de système de défense aérienne qui protège une zone terrestre contre des menaces aériennes.
• La figure 3 illustre schématiquement une méthode de traitement de menaces, mise en oeuvre à l'aide du système de traitement de menaces de la figure 1.
• La figure 4 est un graphique illustrant, schématiquement et très partiellement, les relations entre des missiles du système de défense aérienne et des cibles correspondant à des menaces aériennes.

Other characteristics and advantages of the device, system, process and/or method according to the invention will appear better on reading the following description of exemplary embodiments given by way of illustration and in no way limiting, appended to the figures following.

• There figure 1 is the block diagram of a threat processing system conforming to a particular embodiment of the invention, comprising a device for determining an engagement plan.
• There figure 2 is a schematic view of an example of an air defense system that protects a land area against aerial threats.
• There Figure 3 schematically illustrates a threat processing method, implemented using the threat processing system of the figure 1 .
• There Figure 4 is a graphic illustrating, schematically and very partially, the relationships between missiles of the air defense system and targets corresponding to aerial threats.

detailed description

The device 1 illustrating a particular embodiment of the invention and represented schematically on the figure 1 is intended to determine an engagement plan for an air defense system 2 represented on the figure 2 .

The air defense system 2 is intended to protect a given area, such as the Z0 zone on the ground shown on the figure 2 , and this against aerial threats. The area to be protected may be a land area and/or a maritime area.

To do this, the air defense system 2 comprises a plurality of launchers 4, each of which is capable of firing at least one ammunition and preferably a plurality of munitions.

In the context of the present invention, a munition corresponds to any object or neutralization device, for example a missile or a drone or more generally a set of effectors, capable of damaging or neutralizing (and destroying) an aerial threat. Preferably, the munitions correspond to missiles. Also, by way of non-limiting illustration, we will refer in the following description to Mi missiles as ammunition. Of course, other munitions could be considered in a similar way.

Concerning the Mi missiles used by the air defense system 2, it may be any usual type of missile, preferably of the surface-to-air type but not exclusively. As for the launchers 4, they may be launchers installed at a fixed station or launchers mounted on mobile devices 4A, in particular devices capable of rolling on the ground.

Aerial threats (representing, in the context of this aerial threat, Ci targets for the air defense system 2) can correspond, for their part, to all types of enemy weapons or aerial vehicles, and in particular to aircraft , missiles, drones, etc., likely to harm (damage, destroy, etc.), for example infrastructure or other elements located in the Z0 zone to be protected.

In the example of the figure 2 , aerial threats (or targets Ci) approach the zone Z0 to be protected by following trajectories Ti (called future trajectories, relative to the present moment), some of which have been represented as an example on this figure 2 .

• la zone Z0 à protéger est une zone polygonale au sol ;
• les lanceurs 4 sont des engins mobiles 4A lanceurs de missiles Mj, dont chacun est apte à tirer une pluralité de missiles Mj, les missiles Mj étant tirés l'un après l'autre pour un lanceur 4 ; et
• les cibles Ci (ou menaces aériennes) correspondent à des avions de chasse.

In the particular example of the figure 2 :

• the Z0 zone to be protected is a polygonal zone on the ground;
• the launchers 4 are mobile devices 4A launching missiles Mj, each of which is capable of firing a plurality of missiles Mj, the missiles Mj being fired one after the other for a launcher 4; And
• Ci targets (or aerial threats) correspond to fighter planes.

The device 1 which is intended to determine the engagement plan is part of a system 3 for processing aerial threats in the military domain, represented on the figure 1 . The engagement plan consists of allocating Air Defense System 2 Mj missiles to air threats (Ci targets), as detailed below, i.e. identifying particular Mj missiles that will be used or may be used. be used by the air defense system 2 to neutralize specific Ci targets.

• une unité de réception de données 5 configurée pour recevoir des données concernant au moins les missiles Mj disponibles ainsi que des cibles Ci détectées, comme précisé ci-après ; et
• une unité de traitement 6 configurée pour former le plan d'engagement, à l'aide des données reçues de l'unité de réception 5. Le plan d'engagement qui pourra ensuite être utilisé par le système de défense aérienne 2 pour défendre la zone Z0 contre les menaces aériennes.

To do this, the device 1 comprises the following units, as shown in the figure 1 :

• a data reception unit 5 configured to receive data concerning at least the available missiles Mj as well as detected targets Ci, as specified below; And
• a processing unit 6 configured to form the engagement plan, using the data received from the reception unit 5. The engagement plan which can then be used by the air defense system 2 to defend the area Z0 against aerial threats.

• d'une part, le nombre de missiles Mj du lanceur 4, ce nombre représentant une (première) contrainte concernant les missiles Mj dudit lanceur 4 ; et
• d'autre part, un nombre de dates de tir dans des fenêtres de disponibilité, ce nombre représentant une (seconde) contrainte concernant les dates de tir.

In addition, the data reception unit 5 is configured to also receive, for each Mj missile launcher 4 of the air defense system 2:

• on the one hand, the number of missiles Mj of the launcher 4, this number representing a (first) constraint concerning the missiles Mj of the said launcher 4; And
• on the other hand, a number of firing dates in availability windows, this number representing a (second) constraint concerning the firing dates.

• un élément 7 configuré pour déterminer, pour chaque couple de cible et de missile, un bénéfice dit classique ;
• un élément 8 configuré pour déterminer, pour chaque couple de cible et de missile, un bénéfice dit adapté à partir du bénéfice classique ; et
• un élément 9 configuré pour mettre en oeuvre un algorithme d'enchère utilisant lesdits bénéfices adaptés pour les différents couples de missile et de cible, de manière à déterminer le plan d'engagement.

In addition, the processing unit 6 is configured to determine the engagement plan by taking into account these first and second constraints for all of the launchers 4 considered, and it includes:

• an element 7 configured to determine, for each pair of target and missile, a so-called classic benefit;
• an element 8 configured to determine, for each pair of target and missile, a so-called benefit adapted from the classic benefit; And
• an element 9 configured to implement an auction algorithm using said profits adapted for the different pairs of missile and target, so as to determine the engagement plan.

The engagement plan includes, for each target Ci, the allocation on the one hand of a particular missile Mj from a particular launcher 4 and on the other hand of a firing date of the missile Mj, this allocation satisfying said first and second aforementioned constraints.

• une unité de détection 10 configurée pour détecter des objets aériens dans une zone donnée de l'espace autour de la zone Z0 à protéger ; et
• un dispositif de traitement de données 12, relié par l'intermédiaire d'une liaison 11 (par exemple une liaison filaire ou une liaison radio) à l'unité de détection 10, le dispositif de traitement de données 12 comprenant le dispositif 1.

As for system 3, it includes, in addition to device 1, as shown in the figure 1 , the following units:

• a detection unit 10 configured to detect aerial objects in a given zone of space around the zone Z0 to be protected; And
• a data processing device 12, connected via a link 11 (for example a wired link or a radio link) to the detection unit 10, the data processing device 12 comprising the device 1.

The detection unit 10 comprises usual systems and means, and in particular one or more radars, such as a mobile radar 10A as shown in the figure 2 , capable of automatically detecting aerial objects entering a monitored zone of space which is located around the zone Z0 to be protected. The detection unit 10 automatically provides data (position, trajectory, etc.) relating to detected aerial objects to the data processing device 12.

The system 3 also comprises a data input unit 13 which is connected via a link 14 (for example a wired link or a radio link) to the data processing device 12 and which allows an operator to enter data into the system 3. The data entry unit 13 may include a keyboard, a mouse, a touch pad, etc., or any other usual means, associated for example with a screen, which allows an operator to enter data as specified below.

• une unité d'identification et de classification 15 configurée pour identifier, parmi les objets aériens détectés par l'unité de détection 10 et reçus via la liaison 11 (filaire ou radio), ceux qui représentent des menaces aériennes (dites cibles) et pour définir une classification pour chacune des cibles identifiées ;
• une unité de prédiction 16 configurée pour prédire une trajectoire future pour chacune des cibles identifiées, au moins à partir de la classification correspondante ;
• une unité de calcul 17 configurée pour calculer une fenêtre d'interception, pour chaque couple de missile et de cible, en fonction de la trajectoire future prédite de la cible et d'un domaine d'interception du missile. Chacune des fenêtres d'interception est transformée, de façon usuelle, en une fenêtre de disponibilité ; et
• une unité de traitement (en l'occurrence le dispositif 1) qui est configurée pour déterminer un plan d'engagement en tenant compte des fenêtres de disponibilité.

In addition, the data processing device 12 comprises:

• an identification and classification unit 15 configured to identify, among the aerial objects detected by the detection unit 10 and received via the link 11 (wired or radio), those which represent aerial threats (called targets) and to define a classification for each of the identified targets;
• a prediction unit 16 configured to predict a future trajectory for each of the identified targets, at least from the corresponding classification;
• a calculation unit 17 configured to calculate an interception window, for each pair of missile and target, as a function of the predicted future trajectory of the target and an interception domain of the missile. Each of the interception windows is transformed, in the usual manner, into an availability window; And
• a processing unit (in this case the device 1) which is configured to determine an engagement plan taking into account the availability windows.

The device 1 then transmits the engagement plan, via a link 18 (for example a wired link or a radio link) to user means 19, for example to display means (which display this plan optimal allocation on a screen available to an operator) or at an interface man/machine. In particular, elements 13 and 19 can be part of the same man/machine interface.

The air threat processing system 3 aims to respond in real time and continuously to attack situations in a zone Z0 to be defended, by associating with each target identified as such, at least one Mj missile from a launcher 4 This system 3 can be located in a command and calculation center 20 (. figure 2 And 3 ).

• un ou plusieurs radars 10A ;
• plusieurs lanceurs 4 de missiles Mj ;
• une ou plusieurs liaisons montantes (non représentés) pour guider les missiles ; et
• le centre de commande et de calcul 20 qui détermine le plan d'engagement.

System 3 uses Air Defense System 2 which includes:

• one or more 10A radars;
• several Mj missile launchers 4;
• one or more uplinks (not shown) to guide the missiles; And
• the command and calculation center 20 which determines the engagement plan.

The connection between these different elements can be a wired connection or a radio link.

• des attaques saturantes, comme représenté sur la figure 2, pour lesquelles le nombre de cibles Ci est proche ou égal au nombre de munitions Mj ;
• des cibles imprévisibles, qui manoeuvrent au dernier moment ; et
• de nouvelles menaces aériennes, comme des drones évoluant en essaim.

System 3 faces multiple challenges that are likely to cause it to fail, including:

• saturating attacks, as shown in the figure 2 , for which the number of targets Ci is close to or equal to the number of munitions Mj;
• unpredictable targets, which maneuver at the last moment; And
• new aerial threats, such as drones operating in swarms.

The system 3 is capable of implementing a method for processing aerial threats in the military domain, using an air defense system 2 comprising at least Mj missiles capable of being fired from launchers 4.

• une étape de détection E1, mise en oeuvre par l'unité de détection 10, consistant à détecter des objets aériens dans une zone donnée ;
• une étape d'identification et de classification E2, mise en oeuvre par l'unité d'identification et de classification 15, consistant à identifier, parmi les objets aériens détectés, ceux qui représentent des menaces aériennes dites cibles, et à définir une classification pour chacune des cibles identifiées ;
• une étape de prédiction E3, mise en oeuvre par l'unité de prédiction 16, consistant à déterminer une trajectoire future pour chacune des cibles identifiées, au moins à partir de la classification correspondante ;
• une étape de calcul E4, mise en oeuvre par l'unité de calcul 17, consistant à calculer une fenêtre d'interception pour chaque couple de missile et de cible, en fonction de la trajectoire future prédite de la cible et d'un domaine d'interception du missile, chacune desdites fenêtres d'interception étant transformée en fenêtre de disponibilité ;
• une étape de traitement E5, mise en oeuvre par le dispositif 1, consistant à déterminer un plan d'engagement en tenant compte desdites fenêtres de disponibilité, l'étape de traitement E5 utilisant un procédé de détermination d'un plan d'engagement tel que précisé ci-dessous ; et
• une étape d'exécution du plan d'engagement, mise en oeuvre par au moins certains des lanceurs 4 du système de défense aérienne 2.

On the Figure 3 , we have shown an example of implementation of such a method. More precisely, in this example, the method presents the following steps, implemented successively:

• a detection step E1, implemented by the detection unit 10, consisting of detecting aerial objects in a given area;
• an identification and classification step E2, implemented by the identification and classification unit 15, consisting of identifying, among the detected aerial objects, those which represent so-called target aerial threats, and defining a classification for each of the identified targets;
• a prediction step E3, implemented by the prediction unit 16, consisting of determining a future trajectory for each of the identified targets, at least from the corresponding classification;
• a calculation step E4, implemented by the calculation unit 17, consisting of calculating an interception window for each pair of missile and target, based on the predicted future trajectory of the target and a domain d interception of the missile, each of said interception windows being transformed into an availability window;
• a processing step E5, implemented by the device 1, consisting of determining a commitment plan taking into account said availability windows, the processing step E5 using a method of determining a commitment plan such that specified below; And
• a stage of execution of the engagement plan, implemented by at least some of the launchers 4 of the air defense system 2.

The above steps of the air threat processing method are described in more detail below.

The detection step E1, implemented by the detection unit 10, therefore consists of detecting aerial objects in a given area of space.

To do this, the detection unit 10 comprising, for example, the radars 10A, continuously receives position information from aerial (or flying) objects entering said zone or already being there, i.e. -say a position in space on a given date.

Position information is merged together when they represent the same aerial object. They are then associated with previous position information to form distinct objects or aerial vehicles, essentially by correlation. The arrival frequency of position information is generally a few seconds at most, depending on the rotation speed of the 10A radar(s) used.

When a new aerial object is detected in the detection step E1 by the detection unit 10, the identification and classification unit 15 carries out, in the identification and classification step E2 which follows, all first in the usual way an identification. The objective of the identification is to determine whether the aerial object detected by the detection unit 10 is a friendly object or an enemy object, that is to say a threat. This usual identification can, for example, be carried out by type interrogation IFF (for “Identification Friend or Foe” in English), the lack of response from the aerial object does not necessarily mean that it is an enemy.

If the identified aerial object is determined to be an enemy object, that is to say a target, the identification and classification unit 15 carries out a classification in the identification and classification step E2. For this purpose, the identification and classification unit 15 determines the type (or class) of the target. Knowing the type (fighter, helicopter, missile, etc.) of the target makes it possible, in particular, to determine its trajectory and its dangerousness. For example, a fighter, which can instantly release around ten bombs, is potentially more dangerous than a simple missile. In this case, the fighter will therefore be given a higher threat index (specified below) than a missile.

When one or more aerial objects are designated as targets Ci, the prediction unit 16 determines, in the prediction step E3 which follows, in the usual manner, the future trajectory of each of these targets. To do this, it can use the classification of the target, obtained in the identification and classification step E2. Indeed, an aerial object, for example a fighter or a missile, is constrained in its evolution by its flight dynamics, which makes it possible to predict its future trajectory.

The prediction unit 16 can also use to predict the future trajectory of a target Ci, where appropriate, a point targeted by the target Ci, in particular in the naval domain.

Then, in the following calculation step E4, the calculation unit 17 calculates an interception window for each pair of missile and target, using the predicted future trajectory of the target, determined in step of E3 prediction, as well as a missile interception domain. The interception window concerns a sequence (continuous or discrete) of interception points (or dates).

As for the interception domain of a missile, it corresponds to a three-dimensional domain around the position of the missile in which the probability that it hits the target is at least a predetermined percentage, preferably 90% . This interception domain is, for example, determined in calculation step E4, by a usual “Monte Carlo” type simulation.

Then, in the processing step E5 which follows, the device 1 determines the engagement plan taking into account the availability windows determined in the calculation step E4. Processing step E5 implements a method for determining an engagement plan described in more detail below.

The engagement plan consists of optimally associating (or allocating) one or more missiles to each target, taking into account the interception windows, transformed into an availability window. The calculation time should not exceed a few hundred milliseconds, typically 200 ms.

• une règle d'engagement, c'est-à-dire en particulier définir si l'on souhaite tirer au plus tôt, intercepter le plus loin possible ou le plus tard, ou bien laisser la cible s'approcher ; et
• une politique de tir (« Fire Policy » en anglais), prévoyant :
  • une stratégie de tir de type « SSL » (pour « Shoot-Shoot Look » en anglais) consistant à tirer deux missiles et à attendre l'interception ; ou
  • une stratégie de tir « SLS » (pour « Shoot Look Shoot » en anglais) consistant à tirer un missile, à attendre l'interception, puis à tirer un nouveau missile en cas d'échec.

An operator, in particular from the command and calculation chain 20, can intervene in processing step E5 to configure, for each type of target, as illustrated by an arrow 21 on the Figure 3 :

• a rule of engagement, that is to say in particular defining whether we wish to fire as early as possible, intercept as far away as possible or as late as possible, or let the target approach; And
• a Fire Policy, providing for:
  • an “SSL” type firing strategy (for “Shoot-Shoot Look” in English) consisting of firing two missiles and waiting for interception; Or
  • an “SLS” firing strategy (for “Shoot Look Shoot” in English) consisting of firing a missile, waiting for interception, then firing a new missile in the event of failure.

To do this, the operator can use the data input unit 13 to enter into the data processing device 12 the data allowing the configuration of the rule of engagement and the firing policy.

Once the engagement plan has been calculated, that is to say a set of valid allocations has been obtained, the question arises of its execution when the firing date of an allocated missile expires. An operator, in particular from the command and calculation chain 20, can intervene in execution step E6 to give a firing order, as illustrated by an arrow 22 on the Figure 3 . When the firing order is given, execution step E6 of the engagement plan is implemented by the launchers 4 of the air defense system 2.

Once the engagement plan has been executed (or not), the aforementioned method can be implemented again, starting with the detection of aerial objects. Missiles previously allocated, but not fired, can be reallocated, following the optimum which continuously adapts to the new situation.

A complete cycle of the method is implemented, in a few seconds at most.

As illustrated on the figure 1 , the method can also include an intermediate step E12 between steps E1 and E2. When a missile previously fired arrives at its interception point, step E12 (“Kill Assessment” in English) checks whether the target has been treated (neutralized) as planned, which allows you to know whether or not it is necessary to take into account counts this target as a new target in the rest of the method.

We now describe, in more detail, the method for determining an engagement plan, implemented by the device 1 in processing step E5.

• la désignation de la cible (c'est-à-dire une menace aérienne détectée) considérée ;
• la désignation d'un missile particulier qui est tiré par un lanceur 4 particulier et qui est destiné à traiter cette cible ; et
• une date de tir particulière, à savoir le moment exact où ledit missile doit être tiré par ledit lanceur pour traiter (notamment neutraliser) ladite cible.

The commitment plan includes, for each target, a specific allocation. Each allocation (or association) of elements intended for the treatment (or neutralization of a target) is a group of elements representing adjustment parameters of the air defense system 2 for the treatment of aerial threats. Each allocation includes:

• the designation of the target (i.e. a detected aerial threat) considered;
• the designation of a particular missile which is fired by a particular launcher 4 and which is intended to deal with this target; And
• a particular firing date, namely the exact moment when said missile must be fired by said launcher to treat (in particular neutralize) said target.

It is therefore necessary for the air defense system 2 to know, for each target, the missile which is intended to neutralize it and the date (or moment) of firing of this missile. Indeed, in the context of the present invention, a launcher 4 comprises several missiles Mj and several availability windows within which a certain number of missile firings can be carried out knowing that the launcher 4 can only fire a single missile at at a time and that due to a preparation time for a new shot, two successive shots are spaced by a certain duration.

For each launcher 4 of ammunition Mj of the air defense system 2, it is thus necessary to take into account the number (or stock) of ammunition Mj of the launcher 4, which represents a (first) constraint concerning the ammunition Mj of said launcher 4, and on the other hand a number of firing dates in availability windows, which represents a (second) constraint concerning the firing dates.

Furthermore, it is not possible to separate the two constraints, because the probability p _ij that the missile Mj destroys the target Ci depends as much on the characteristics of the missile Mj (and the position of the launcher 4) as on the date on which he is fired.

Furthermore, when two missiles face each other when turning on their seekers, they risk targeting each other, and if their seekers are electromagnetic and of close frequencies, they will interfere. We call soft conflicts, those conflicts which take place between allocations (missiles), as opposed to hard conflicts (or resources) which take place between targets. Thanks to the invention, hard conflicts are resolved by the use of an auction algorithm and light conflicts by the determination of an adapted profit which is used by the auction algorithm, as specified below .

To illustrate an allocation, we have represented on the figure 4 , certain targets C1 to C4 of the air threat to which missiles M1 to M6 of the air defense system 2 can be allocated. We have only shown the links concerning targets C1 and C2 for reasons of clarity of the figure 4 . Of course, shooting dates should also be taken into account, as previously stated.

As specified below, the method for determining a commitment plan, implemented by the device 1 in processing step E5, will use a so-called auction algorithm (or process or system). As the object of the auction is not only the missile, but the missile and launch date pair, it is not possible to use a classic auction algorithm as is because the latter only integrates a single type of constraint per object. This problem is solved by the method (of determining the commitment plan) in the manner described below.

• une étape de réception de données E5A, mise en oeuvre par l'unité 5, consistant à recevoir des données concernant au moins les missiles disponibles et les cibles détectées. L'étape de réception de données E5A consiste à recevoir également, pour chaque lanceur de missiles du système de défense aérienne, d'une part le nombre de missiles du lanceur représentant une première contrainte concernant les missiles dudit lanceur, et d'autre part un nombre de dates de tir dans des fenêtres de disponibilité représentant une seconde contrainte concernant les dates de tir ; et
• une étape de traitement E5B, mise en oeuvre par l'unité 6, consistant, à l'aide des données reçues à l'étape de réception de données E5A, à former le plan d'engagement.

Said process or processing step E5 ( Figure 3 ) for determining a commitment plan, includes the following steps, implemented automatically and successively:

• a data reception step E5A, implemented by unit 5, consisting of receiving data concerning at least the available missiles and the detected targets. The data reception step E5A also consists of receiving, for each missile launcher of the air defense system, on the one hand the number of missiles from the launcher representing a first constraint concerning the missiles of said launcher, and on the other hand a number of firing dates in availability windows representing a second constraint regarding firing dates; And
• a processing step E5B, implemented by unit 6, consisting, using the data received in the data reception step E5A, of forming the engagement plan.

• une sous-étape E5B1 mise en oeuvre par l'élément 7, consistant à déterminer, pour chaque couple de cible Ci d'indice i et de missile Mj d'indice j, un bénéfice dit classique β_ij qui représente un paramètre permettant de quantifier l'intérêt d'utiliser le missile Mj pour neutraliser la cible Ci. Ce bénéfice classique β_ij dépend d'une probabilité que la munition Mj d'indice j détruise la cible Ci d'indice i ;
• une sous-étape E5B2 mise en oeuvre par l'élément 8, consistant à déterminer, pour chaque couple de cible Ci d'indice i et de missile Mj d'indice j, un bénéfice β' _ij dit adapté qui prenant en compte les conflits légers potentiels entre les allocations ; et
• une sous-étape E5B3 mise en oeuvre par l'élément 9, consistant à mettre en oeuvre un algorithme d'enchère prenant en compte lesdites premières et secondes contraintes et utilisant lesdits bénéfices β'_ij adaptés pour tous les couples de missile et cible, afin de déterminer le plan d'engagement.

The processing step E5B implemented by unit 6 consists of determining the engagement plan by taking into account said first and second constraints, and this processing step E5B comprises at least:

• a substep E5B1 implemented by element 7, consisting of determining, for each pair of target Ci of index i and missile Mj of index j, a so-called classic benefit β _ij which represents a parameter making it possible to quantify the advantage of using the missile Mj to neutralize the target Ci. This classic benefit β _ij depends on a probability that the munition Mj of index j destroys the target Ci of index i ;
• a sub-step E5B2 implemented by element 8, consisting of determining, for each pair of target Ci of index i and missile Mj of index j, a so-called adapted benefit β ' _ij which takes into account the conflicts slight potentials between allocations; And
• a sub-step E5B3 implemented by element 9, consisting of implementing an auction algorithm taking into account said first and second constraints and using said profits β' _ij adapted for all pairs of missile and target, in order to to determine the commitment plan.

dans laquelle :

• p_ij est la probabilité qu'un missile Mj d'indice j détruise une cible Ci d'indice i, la probabilité dépendant du missile Mj et de la date de tir ; et
• u_i est un critère de menace attribué à la cible d'indice i.

In the first substep E5B1, element 7 determines the classic benefit β _ij using the following expression: $${\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}=u_i{p}_{\mathit{ij}}$$

in which :

• p _ij is the probability that a missile Mj of index j destroys a target Ci of index i, the probability depending on the missile Mj and the firing date; And
• u _i is a threat criterion assigned to the target with index i .

This threat criterion is a factor which is representative of the dangerousness of the threat (or target). The dangerousness depends mainly on the type (or class) of the target. It is all the more important if the target represents an immediate danger or more generally a priority. It is set upstream of the auction algorithm according to the tactical situation and remains fixed throughout the calculation.

The threat criterion u _i quantifies the level of dangerousness based on the classification of the target. It is all the more important if the target represents an immediate danger or more generally a priority. It is set upstream of the auction algorithm according to the tactical situation and remains fixed throughout the calculation.

dans laquelle :

• β_ij est le bénéfice classique déterminé à la sous-étape E5B1 ;
• c_ijkt est un coefficient supérieur ou égal à zéro, qui illustre l'importance du conflit entre deux allocations [ij] (munition Mj allouée à la cible Ci) et [kl] (munition MI allouée à la cible Ck) ; et
• x_kl est une valeur binaire qui vaut 1 si la munition d'indice / est allouée à la cible d'indice k et qui vaut 0 sinon.

Furthermore, in substep E5B2, element 8 determines the adapted benefit β ' _ij using the following expression: $${\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}^{\prime }={\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}-\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathit{kl}}{\mathrm{vs}}_{\mathit{ijkl}}{x}_{\mathit{kl}}}$$

in which :

• β _ij is the classic profit determined in substep E5B1;
• c _ijkt is a coefficient greater than or equal to zero, which illustrates the importance of the conflict between two allocations [ij] (munition Mj allocated to target Ci) and [kl] (munition MI allocated to target Ck); And
• x _kl is a binary value which is worth 1 if the ammunition with index / is allocated to the target with index k and which is worth 0 otherwise.

If the allocation [kl] is in conflict with the allocation [ij] and if the ammunition Ml is allocated to the target Ck then x _kl is worth 1 and the benefit β _ij is reduced by the value c _ijkl , which will push the algorithm to choose another ammunition Mj' for the target Ci. The coefficient c _ijkl is determined from the safety rules between the different ammunition trajectories. For example, it can represent the distance that two munitions must respect between them for safety.

• chaque missile j étant caractérisé par un prix p_j , chaque cible mise sur le missile qui maximise son profit $\underset{j}{\mathit{argmax}}\left\{\beta {\prime }_{\mathit{ij}}-p_j\right\}$
  
  , avec β' _ij le bénéfice adapté déterminé à la sous-étape E5B2 ;
• la mise fait monter le prix de la munition jusqu'à la résolution de tous les conflits ;
• cette manière de procéder permet d'atteindre le maximum global de la somme : $$\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathit{ij}}{\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}{x}_{\mathit{ij}},{\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}\ge 0,}& x_{\mathit{ij}}\ge 0\end{array}$$
  
  avec les deux limitations suivantes sur chaque cible et chaque missile : $$\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \sum _j{x}_{\mathit{ij}}=M_i},& {\displaystyle \sum _i{x}_{\mathit{ij}}\le N_j}\end{array}$$
  

Furthermore, in substep E5B3, element 9 implements the auction algorithm. The auction algorithm has the following characteristics:

• each missile j being characterized by a price p _j , each target bets on the missile which maximizes its profit $\underset{j}{\mathit{argmax}}\left\{\beta {\prime }_{\mathit{ij}}-p_j\right\}$
  
  , with β ' _ij the adapted benefit determined in substep E5B2;
• the stake increases the price of the ammunition until all conflicts are resolved;
• this way of proceeding makes it possible to reach the overall maximum of the sum: $$\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathit{ij}}{\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}{x}_{\mathit{ij}},{\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}\ge 0,}& x_{\mathit{ij}}\ge 0\end{array}$$
  
  with the following two limitations on each target and each missile: $$\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \sum _j{x}_{\mathit{ij}}=M_i},& {\displaystyle \sum _i{x}_{\mathit{ij}}\le {\mathrm{NOT}}_j}\end{array}$$
  

• la convergence est obtenue lorsque chaque cible a alloué le nombre voulu de missiles.

According to these two limitations, the auction algorithm allocates exactly M _i missiles to the target of index i and does not allocate more than N _j times the type of missile of index j in a given launcher;

• convergence is obtained when each target has allocated the desired number of missiles.

In substep E5B3, said first and second constraints are taken into account in inequalities similar to the formulation: $${\displaystyle \sum _i{x}_{\mathit{ij}}\le {\mathrm{NOT}}_j}$$

Thus, for example in the case of a stock of ammunition, the number N _j corresponds to the maximum number of ammunition of the launcher in which the ammunition j is located. In the case of the number of firing dates, the number N _j is the maximum number of shots that the launcher can perform in the firing slot where the firing date of the ammunition j is located in its launcher.

• une fréquence d'autodirecteur si le missile est pourvu d'un autodirecteur (à guidage électromagnétique) pour le guidage terminal ; et
• un canal montant. Un canal est une zone dans l'espace entourant une trajectoire de vol qui est destinée à être suivie par un missile. Ce canal qui présente un couloir d'évolution pour le missile est dit montant, car le missile part du sol vers le haut en direction de la cible à neutraliser.

In a particular embodiment, processing step E5 also consists of determining, in the engagement plan, at least one of the following parameters for each of the missiles:

• a seeker frequency if the missile is equipped with a seeker (with electromagnetic guidance) for terminal guidance; And
• a rising channel. A channel is an area in space surrounding a flight path that is intended to be followed by a missile. This channel which presents an evolution corridor for the missile is called rising, because the missile goes from the ground upwards towards the target to be neutralized.

• la cible ;
• un missile particulier apte à être tiré à partir d'un lanceur particulier pour traiter (neutraliser) la cible ;
• une date de tir particulière, c'est-à-dire le moment exact où ledit missile doit être tiré par ledit lanceur pour traiter (notamment neutraliser) ladite cible ;
• une fréquence d'autodirecteur particulière si le missile est pourvu d'un autodirecteur pour le guidage terminal (à guidage électromagnétique) ; et
• un canal montant particulier, pour l'évolution du missile en direction de la cible.

In this particular embodiment, the commitment plan includes, for each target, a particular allocation. Each allocation (or association) of elements is a group of elements representing adjustment parameters of the air defense system 2 for processing air threats. Each allocation includes, in this case:

• target ;
• a particular missile capable of being fired from a particular launcher to treat (neutralize) the target;
• a particular firing date, that is to say the exact moment when said missile must be fired by said launcher to treat (in particular neutralize) said target;
• a particular seeker frequency if the missile is equipped with a seeker for terminal guidance (with electromagnetic guidance); And
• a particular rising channel, for the evolution of the missile towards the target.

During the first flight phase after firing, the missile is guided towards the target from the ground through the rising channel. By assigning each missile a separate channel, we prevent the appearance of interference between the missiles which could invalidate the engagement plan.

In the terminal phase of flight, the missile's seeker, which relies on electromagnetic or infrared detection of the target, is activated, and it is used to guide the missile until the target is intercepted. It is therefore important to ensure that the missiles use very distinct electromagnetic frequencies, otherwise they could interfere and derail the engagement plan.

Device 1, as described above, thus has many advantages. It is the same for system 3 which uses this device 1.

The device 1 carries out the treatments quickly and adapted to the complex situation considered.

To do this, the device 1 uses an auction algorithm to determine the commitment plan and thus benefits from the advantages of such an auction algorithm. In particular, the auction algorithm is very robust, its complexity makes it possible to understand saturating attacks in real time, and it converges towards a global maximum while the usual “greedy” type solutions only reach a maximum. local, without guarantee that this is close to the global maximum.

• d'une part, en satisfaisant lesdites premières et secondes contraintes par la mise en oeuvre de l'algorithme d'enchère ; et
• d'autre part, en gérant lesdits conflits d'allocations (ou conflits légers) potentiels par le calcul et la prise en compte du bénéfice adapté au lieu d'un bénéfice classique (c'est-à-dire d'un bénéfice usuel d'un algorithme d'enchère).

Furthermore, above all, the auction algorithm is made applicable to the determination of the commitment plan, in particular by determining the adapted profit, taking into account the two aforementioned constraints. In the applications considered, there are, in fact, two elements (munition and firing date) that cannot be separated, and conflicts between allocations may appear, which could invalidate the engagement plan. The aforementioned method implementing the auction algorithm makes it possible to respond to such a situation:

• on the one hand, by satisfying said first and second constraints by implementing the auction algorithm; And
• on the other hand, by managing said potential allocation conflicts (or light conflicts) by calculating and taking into account the adapted benefit instead of a classic benefit (that is to say a usual benefit of 'an auction algorithm).

The device 1 and the system 3 therefore make it possible to respond in real time and continuously to situations of attack on an area to be defended, by associating with each target identified as such, a missile in a launcher with a firing date. They make it possible to resolve a complex situation that is difficult to resolve by usual means, and in particular both heavy conflicts and light conflicts which may arise in the applications envisaged.

Claims (9)

Method for determining an engagement plan for an air defense system (2) comprising at least munitions (Mi) capable of being fired from launchers (4), at least some of said launchers (4) being capable of fire several munitions (Mj), the engagement plan consisting of allocating munitions (Mj) of the air defense system (2) to so-called target aerial threats (Ci), each allocation being a group of elements representing parameters of adjustment of the air defense system (2) for processing aerial threats, said method comprising the following steps, implemented automatically and successively, by a device (1) for determining an engagement plan: - a data reception step (E5A) implemented by a data reception unit (5) of the device (1) for determining an engagement plan and consisting of receiving data concerning at least the munitions (Mj ) available and targets (Ci) detected; And - a processing step (E5B) implemented by a processing unit (6) of the device (1) for determining an engagement plan and consisting, using the data received at the reception step ( E5A), to form the engagement plan, said engagement plan being used by the air defense system (2) to defend a particular zone (Z0) against aerial threats, characterized in that : - the data reception step (E5A) consists of also receiving, for each launcher (4) of munitions (Mj) of the air defense system (2), on the one hand the number of munitions (Mj) of the launcher ( 4) representing a first constraint concerning the ammunition (Mj) of said launcher (4), and on the other hand a number of firing dates in availability windows representing a second constraint concerning the firing dates; And - the processing step (E5B) consists of determining the engagement plan by taking into account said first and second constraints, said processing step (E5B) comprising at least: • a first sub-step (E5B1) consisting of determining, for each pair of target (Ci) and ammunition (Mj), a so-called classic benefit which represents a parameter making it possible to quantify the interest in using the ammunition (Mj) to neutralize the target (Ci), said classic benefit depending on a probability that the ammunition (Mj) destroys the target (Ci); • a second sub-step (E5B2) consisting of determining, for each pair of target and ammunition, a so-called adapted benefit, taking into account potential conflicts between allocations; And • a third sub-step (E5B3) consisting of implementing an auction algorithm taking into account said first and second constraints and using said profits adapted for all pairs of ammunition and target, in order to determine the engagement plan, said engagement plan comprising for each of said targets (Ci) the allocation on the one hand of at least one particular ammunition (Mj) from a particular launcher (4) and on the other hand of a firing date of this ammunition (Mj), this allocation satisfying said first and second constraints. Method according to claim 1,
characterized in that the first sub-step (E5B1) determines the classic benefit β _ij using the following expression: $${\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}=u_i{p}_{\mathit{ij}}$$

in which : - p _ij is the probability that an ammunition (Mj) of index j destroys a target (Ci) of index i, the probability depending on the ammunition (Mj) and the date of firing of the latter; And - u _i is a threat criterion assigned to the target (Ci) of index i . Method according to one of claims 1 and 2,
characterized in that the second sub-step (E5B2) determines the adapted benefit β ' _ij using the following expression: $${\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}^{\prime }={\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}-\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathit{kl}}{\mathrm{vs}}_{\mathit{ijkl}}{x}_{\mathit{kl}}}$$

in which : - β _ij is said classic profit; - c _ijkl is a coefficient greater than or equal to zero, which illustrates the importance of a conflict between two allocations [ij] and [kl]; And - x _kl is a binary value which is worth 1 if the ammunition with index / is allocated to the target with index k and which is worth 0 otherwise. Method according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the third sub-step (E5B3) implements the auction algorithm having the following characteristics: - each ammunition (Mj) of index j being characterized by a price p _j , each target (Ci) bets on the ammunition (Mj) which maximizes its profit $\underset{j}{\mathit{argmax}}\left\{\beta {\prime }_{\mathit{ij}}-p_j\right\}$

, with β ' _ij said adapted benefit; - the stake increases the price of the ammunition (Mj) until all conflicts are resolved; - this way of proceeding makes it possible to reach the overall maximum of the sum: $$\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathit{ij}}{\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}{x}_{\mathit{ij}},{\beta }_{\mathit{ij}}\ge 0,}& x_{\mathit{ij}}\ge 0\end{array}$$

with the following limitations on each target (Ci) and each ammunition (Mj): $$\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \sum _j{x}_{\mathit{ij}}=M_i},& {\displaystyle \sum _i{x}_{\mathit{ij}}\le {\mathrm{NOT}}_j}\end{array}$$

according to which the auction algorithm allocates exactly M _i ammunition to the target of index i and does not allocate more than N _j times the type of ammunition of index j in a given launcher (4); And - convergence is obtained when each target has allocated the desired number of ammunition. Method according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the processing step (E5) consists of also determining, for the engagement plan, at least one of the following parameters for each of the munitions (Mj): - if the munition (Mj) is provided with a seeker for terminal guidance, a frequency for said seeker; - a rising channel. Method for dealing with aerial threats in the military field, using an air defense system (2) comprising at least munitions (Mj) capable of being fired from launchers (4),
characterized in that it comprises at least the following steps: - a detection step (E1) consisting of detecting aerial objects in a given area; - an identification and classification step (E2) consisting of identifying, among the aerial objects detected, those which represent aerial threats called targets (Ci), and determining a classification for each of the targets (Ci) thus identified; - a prediction step (E3) consisting of predicting a future trajectory for each of the targets (Ci) identified, at least from the corresponding classification; - a calculation step (E4) consisting of calculating an interception window, for each pair of ammunition and target, according to the predicted future trajectory of the target (Ci) and an interception domain of the ammunition (Mj), each of said interception windows being transformed into an availability window; - a processing step (E5) consisting of determining a commitment plan taking into account said availability windows, the processing step (E5) implementing a method for determining a commitment plan according to one any of claims 1 to 5; And - a step (E6) of execution of the commitment plan. Method according to claim 6,
characterized in that , each target (Ci) corresponding to a particular type of target among different types, the processing step (E5) takes into account, for each type of target, a rule of engagement and/or a policy shooting. Device for determining an engagement plan for an air defense system (2) comprising at least munitions (Mj) capable of being fired from launchers (4), at least some of said launchers (4) being capable of fire several munitions (Mj), the engagement plan consisting of allocating munitions (Mj) of the air defense system (2) to so-called target aerial threats (Ci), each allocation being a group of elements representing parameters of adjustment of the air defense system (2) for the treatment of aerial threats,
said device (1) comprising at least the following units: - a data reception unit (5) configured to receive data concerning at least the available munitions (Mj) and detected targets (Ci); And - a processing unit (6) configured to, using the data received from the data reception unit (5), form the engagement plan, the engagement plan consisting of allocating to each target (Ci ) detected one or more munitions (Mj), said engagement plan being used by the air defense system (2) to defend a particular zone (Z0) against aerial threats, characterized in that : - the data reception unit (5) is configured to also receive, for each launcher (4) of munitions (Mj) of the air defense system (2), on the one hand the number of munitions (Mj) of the launcher (4) representing a first constraint concerning the ammunition (Mj) of said launcher (4), and on the other hand a number of firing dates in availability windows representing a second constraint concerning the firing dates; And - the processing unit (6) is configured to determine the engagement plan by taking into account said first and second constraints, the processing unit (6) comprising at least: • a first element (7) configured to determine, for each pair of target (Ci) and ammunition (Mj), a so-called classic benefit which represents a parameter making it possible to quantify the interest in using the ammunition (Mj) to neutralize the target (Ci), said classic benefit depending on a probability that the ammunition (Mj) destroys the target (Ci); • a second element (8) configured to determine, for each pair of index target and ammunition, a so-called adapted benefit, taking into account potential conflicts between allocations; And • a third element (9) configured to implement an auction algorithm taking into account said first and second constraints and using said profits adapted for all pairs of ammunition and target, in order to determine the engagement plan, said plan commitment comprising for each target (Ci) the allocation on the one hand of at least one particular ammunition (Mj) from a particular launcher (4) and on the other hand of a firing date of this ammunition ( Mj), this allocation satisfying said first and second constraints. System for processing aerial threats in the military field, using an air defense system (2) comprising at least munitions (Mj) capable of being fired from launchers (4),
characterized in that it comprises at least the following units: - a detection unit (10) configured to detect aerial objects in a given area; - an identification and classification unit (15) configured to identify, among the detected aerial objects, those which represent aerial threats called targets (Ci), and to define a classification for each of the targets (Ci) identified; - a prediction unit (16) configured to predict a future trajectory for each of the targets (Ci) identified, at least from the corresponding classification; - a calculation unit (17) configured to calculate an interception window, for each pair of ammunition and target, as a function of the predicted future trajectory of the target (Ci) and an interception domain of the ammunition (Mj), each of said interception windows being transformed into an availability window; And - a processing unit (1) configured to determine an engagement plan taking into account said availability windows, the processing unit comprising a device (1) for determining an engagement plan according to claim 8, said engagement plan being capable of being executed by said air defense system (2).

Images